Dismissed

Kiran Narayan v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2019WPC/746/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging termination from a contractual post of Block Programme Officer. The single-judge bench held no illegality or infirmity in the termination order as the agreement allowed termination for unsatisfactory services, and the officer was authorized to act. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No direction for reinstatement was granted; petition dismissed.

Kiran Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 746 of 2018

Kiran Narayan

… Petitioner

V E R S U S –

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih

¶8

3. The Deputy Development Officer, Giridih

¶9

4. The Block Development Officer, Sariya, Giridih

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR S. N. PATHAK

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Vineet Prakash, AC to SC (L & C)-I

¶13

¶14

08/20.06.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner against the post of Block Programme Officer from the date of his termination. Further prayer has been made to quash the letter dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-8) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, whereby the respondent No.2 has terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect.

¶16

Bereft of unnecessary details, the petitioner was selected to the post of Block Programme Officer in connection with Rural Development Department, Resolution No. 4729 dated 04.06.2007, by which interview were taken on 04.04.2008 and 05.04.2008, by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur and vide Memo No. 242 dated 08.05.2008, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis at the hands of Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner joined on 16.05.2008 and worked to satisfaction of the respondents. On 18.06.2009 vide Memo No.73/vi, the petitioner was transferred to Bagodar Block at Giridih District. Again, she was transferred to Zamua Block at Giridih and subsequent to that she was transferred to Sariya Block at Giridih vide Memo No. 1599/Abhi dated 05.11.2016 and she joined at Sariya Block on 19.12.2016. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 09.11.2017 vide Memo No. 894/go, the Deputy Development Commssioner, Giridih issued a show cause to the petitioner with regard to implementation of the schemes of Government from 2011 to 2017. Again vide Memo No. 2543/Abhi dated 22.09.2017, the petitioner was issued a show cause by the D.D.C., Giridih. Pursuant thereto, on 25.09.2017, the petitioner replied to the show cause to the D.D.C., Giridih cum District Programme Co-ordinator. But again, on 18.11.2017 vide Memo No. 2880/Abhi., Giridih, the D.D.C, Giridih issued a show cause to the petitioner alleging therein non-execution of MANAREGA Schemes and lacunas in the same, she replied and denied all the allegations levelled against her. As reply of the petitioner was found not to be satisfactory, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide Memo No. 3110/Abhi, dated 20.12.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before

¶17

¶18

the respondents for reinstatement of services against the order of termination, but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of her grievances.

¶19

Mr. Awinash Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner was appointed by the Commissioner Chhotanagpur Zone, Hazaribagh and the order of termination has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Giridih, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that charges levelled against the petitioner were for the year, 2011 to 2017 whereas the petitioner joined the Sariya Block only in the year, 2016 and as such, the petitioner is not covered by the charges and therefore, the order of termination is not sustainable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside.

¶20

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent- State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the appointment of the petitioner itself was contractual, no right has accrued to the petitioner to continue on the said post after the contract comes to an end. It is further argued that Deputy Commissioner was fully authorized to pass an order of termination and it cannot be said that the order of termination is without jurisdiction.

¶21

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. As per the Clause IV of the appointment letter, which has been brought on record, it is mentioned that if the services of the petitioner is found not satisfactory, she/he can be terminated at any point of time. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, which is not sustainable, is also not acceptable in view of the counter-affidavit particularly Annexure E, para 30 wherein vide Letter No. (N) 848 dated 21.03.2017, the Deputy Commissioner is fully authorized to take action against the employees of MANAREGA, who are appointed by way of contract.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid observations, I do not find any illegality or infirmity and as such, instant writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶24

Punit/-

Kiran Narayan v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Narayan v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Gupta Vs Home Department

Dr Radha Kant Kunwar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Sumit B Binha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Rup Singh Tiriya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Murlidhar Mishra Vs Human Resources Department